445 F.

2d 644

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,

v.
RAYMOND BUICK, INC., and Amalgamated Local Union
355, Respondents.
No. 862.
Docket 35425.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 9, 1971.
Decided June 24, 1971.

Stephen Solomon, Washington, D. C., (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel,

Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst.
Gen. Counsel, William Wachter, Atty., National Labor Relations Board,
on the brief), for petitioner.
Richard M. Naness, Plainview, N. Y., for respondent Raymond Buick,
Inc.
Harold Dublirer, New York City (Dublirer, Haydon & Straci, New York
City, on the brief), for respondent Amalgamated Local Union 355.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and HAYS and OAKES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:

The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order
requiring respondents Raymond Buick, Inc. and Amalgamated Local Union 355
to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative
action.

The Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found that the company
violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a) (2) and (1)
(1964)) by the organizational activities of Assistant Service Manager Winter on

behalf of Local 355, by its recognition of Local 355 and the execution of a
contract with it when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees, and by recognizing Local 355 at a time when a real question
concerning representation raised by another union existed. The Board further
found that the company violated Section 8(a) (2), (3) and (1) of the Act (29
U.S.C. 158(a) (2), (3) and (1) (1964)) by including and maintaining a union
security clause in the Local 355 contract and found Local 355 in violation of
Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) (29 U.S.C. 158(b) (1) (A) and (2) (1964)) for
using company assistance to obtain both recognition and a contract and for
agreeing to and enforcing the union security clause.
3

The issues in the case are purely factual. An issue as to the supervisory status of
Winter presents only the question of the extent to which the other employees
considered Winter a part of management. The findings of the Board in this
respect are supported by substantial evidence.

In reviewing the testimony of employee Anzalone, the Board found that "a
decision by the Board in this proceeding should not be based on the testimony
of Michael Anzalone where it is not corroborated by other credited testimony."
173 N.L.R.B. No. 199 (1968). Anzalone testified that the employees considered
Winter a supervisor. From this, respondents argue that the holding with respect
to the supervisory status of Winter cannot stand. We disagree. There was
clearly sufficient credited corroborative testimony to support this finding.
Several other employees testified to the same effect,1 and there is other
evidence in the record regarding Winter's various functions which establishes
his supervisory status.

The remedies imposed by the Board were all fully within its power. The Board
ordered reimbursement of those employees who signed cards authorizing
deduction of dues and initiation fees under supervisory influence or coercion.
All employees who signed subsequent to the execution of the contract are
included among those to be reimbursed. Such an order is based on the premise
that employees who sign cards after a contract containing a compulsory union
membership clause has been executed have been coerced into doing so.
Requiring reimbursement in this situation is entirely proper. See NLRB v.
Revere Metal Art Co., 280 F.2d 96, 100-101 (2d Cir. 1960).

We therefore enforce the Board's order in its entirety.

Notes:

For example, employee Shea testified as follows:

"Q. Did you observe what Mr. Winter does in the shop? A. He is more or less
the shop foreman, you know, write-up man.
Q. When you say he is more or less the shop foreman, what does he do? A.
Well, he more or less runs the shop in John's absence.
*****
Q. Now when you say that during Mr. Cifelli's absence, Mr. Winter runs the
shop, what do you mean by that? A. Well, he is more or less in charge. He is
the man to see if you have any problems."